(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites Rashi's explanation on the Gemara's Kashya and Teretz, and explains why the text reads 'es Avihah bi'Sereifah' when we have just changed the ruling to Sekilah. Finally, they offer another interpretation of 'Sircha Nakat' to explain how this also answers the Kashya why the Tana says 'es Chamihah bi'Sereifah').

פ"ה, והא דקאמר "את אביה", ולא נקט לשון 'ארוסה' ולשון 'נשואה'?

(a) Explanation: Rashi explains that what the Gemara means to ask is why the Tana Kama says 'es Avihah' (rather than a Lashon of Arusah and Nesu'ah ... ).

סירכא נקט.

(b) Explanation #1: The Gemara explains that the reason for this is because it follows the Lashon of the Pasuk, as we will explain shortly.

(g) Explanation: We therefore answer that the Gemara means is that it mentions 'es Avihah bi'Sereifah', it is merely following the general Halachah, that a daughter receives Sereifah and a daughter-in-law, Sekilah (covering both 'Avihah' and 'Chamihah').

3) TOSFOS DH HILCH'SA LI'MESHICHA

תוספות ד"ה הלכתא למשיחא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites a Gemara in Zevachim where Rav Yosef asks the same Kashya. He then reconciles this with two Gemaros (in Kidushin and Yoma), where we rule like R. Yossi, even though they appear to be cases of 'Hilch'sa le'Mashi'ach'). Finally, they ask from a Gemara in Manachos, where R. Yochanan rules like Aba Sha'ul ben Dustai (even though the ruling has no practical ramifications. They give three answers).

(b) Question: When we Pasken like R. Yossi in Perek Asarah Yuchsin, regarding 'Asidim Mamzerim Litaher', why does the Gemara not also ask 'Hilch'sa li'Meshicha?'

נ"מ בזה"ז שלא להתרחק ממשפחות שאינן ידועות, דבממזר שאינו ידוע מיירי.

(c) Answer: Because this ruling has practical ramifications, inasmuch as, as a result, it is not necessary to refrain from marrying into families whose Kashrus is unknown, seeing as R. Yossi is speaking about unknown Mamzerim.

ובפ"ק דיומא (ד' יג. ושם) דפסקו כרבי יוסי, ראשון חוזר לעבודתו?

(d) Question: And we can ask the same Kashya in the first Perek of Yoma, where the Gemara Paskens like R. Yossi, that the first Kohen Gadol goes back to his Avodah?

נ"מ לנשיא או פרנס שנתמנה על הציבור ועבר מחמת האונס.

(e) Answer: That ruling too, has practical ramifications regarding a president or a community leader who has been removed from his post due to an Oneis, and who later becomes fit.

(h) Answer #2: R. Chayim however, answers that the Gemara only asks the Kashya there where there two points against the ruling - 1. That it will only applicable in the time of Mashi'ach, and 2. That the ruling entails transgressing an Isur, since the ruling will then not even apply in the time of Mashi'ach , when all the people will be righteous.

(i) Answer #3: It seems to the author of this Tosfos however, that the Gemara only asks the Kashya here, where the Gemara is merely coming to reconcile a problem in the Sugya, as the Gemara concludes; But not where there are Halachic ramifications - even if they will only take effect in the time of Mashi'ach.

(b) Answer: From "Hi" alone, we would have not have excluded Zomemin, since we need to fulfil "Ka'asher Zamam"; Therefore the Torah writes "le'Achiv", 've'Lo la'Achoso'. On the other hand, were it not for "le'Achiv", we sould have thought that they are only Chayav there where they testify on the Bo'el as well.

5) TOSFOS DH VE'R. YISHMAEL SAVAR MI'DE'KA'AMAR LEIH BAS U'BAS ...

תוספות ד"ה ורבי ישמעאל סבר מדקא"ל בת ובת ...

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explain how R. Yishmael Darshens "Bas" "u'Bas", according to R. Akiva, even though he does not learn the Gezeirah-Shavah [of "Avihah" "Avihah"], and we initially think that "Bas" "u'Bas" comes to preclude the Gezeirah-Shavah).

(b) Answer: R. Yishmael holds that, according to R. Akiva, "Bas" "u'Bas" comes to prevent us from saying that when the Pasuk sentences a Bas Yisrael to the Din of Sekilah, it is confined to an Arusah but not a Nesu'ah. From "Bas" "u'Bas" we learn that the same applies to a Nesu'ah.